Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Facilities Renovation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Consultants outline Margaret Newton restroom remodel and third-grade options; board requests MOU and scope
Summary
Consultants from McKinstry presented options to renovate restrooms and potentially relocate rising third graders to Margaret Newton; no action was taken, and trustees asked staff to return in January with an MOU and scoped budget estimate.
Consultants from McKinstry presented a design and procurement approach for remodeling restrooms at Margaret Newton and discussed a possible move of rising third graders into the building. The presentation, given Dec. 8, emphasized building-age issues (original construction dates from 1953 with a 1981 addition), nonfunctional fixtures, constrained plumbing chases and the likelihood of code triggers that could increase scope and cost.
Dylan Fontaine (McKinstry) and John Bolt (construction manager) described a two‑phase engagement: a design phase (roughly three months) to produce stamped engineering drawings and a turnkey construction phase. They estimated a minimal "turnkey" price to get two restrooms fully up to code in the neighborhood of $300,000 (with higher ranges discussed depending on code triggers and desired upgrades). Consultants noted that bringing work into compliance could trigger ADA and other code work that would expand the project and cost. They suggested involving the authority having jurisdiction or fire marshal early in the design phase to avoid rework.
Board members and administrators asked about logistics — plumbing chase access, summer vs in‑session construction, whether temporary facilities would be needed, and procurement options (design‑bid‑build versus design‑build). Consultants said the design phase could be procured with a GMAX/guaranteed maximum amount option and that the district could purchase the scope of work if it later chose a different contractor.
No formal action was taken. The consultants offered to prepare an MOU and a scoped proposal and return in January with a proposed ceiling for design work so the board could decide whether to proceed into a paid design phase. Trustees asked staff to provide budget context and to show where $300,000 would come from in the district's fund balance if the board wanted to authorize a design contract.
The consultants emphasized stewardship and future-proofing, advising the district to consider maintenance access (widen plumbing chases) and to plan for longer-term system upgrades so the district would not revisit the same issue in 30–40 years.
